some pre-conceived religious opinions, such as have been long the subject of attention, anxiety, and prayer. But it is highly improbable, that men should without any intervening cause become on a sudden enthusiasts on points they had never thought on before, much more in favour of opinions, against which they had been violently prejudiced from the first dawn of reason, by habit, instruction, religion, and example. Yet such opinions the Jews must have embraced before they could have admitted the crucified Jesus for the Messiah, whom the prophets had foretold. It is, I contend for it, very incredible, that blind enthusiasm could have any weight in this case, except against the reception of such opinions. The warm and bigoted Jew would instantly reject, and I may say, enthusiastically oppose them. The only process by which he could be induced to admit the truth of the gospel, was the most sober, deliberate, and argumentative which can be imagined; requiring an accurate examination of the prophetic writings; and a close comparison of their contents, with the character and history of our blessed Lord. The questions which must arise on such an inquiry, were surely such as are most remote from the influence of fanatic delusion. Whether Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, in the town of Bethlehem; whether his character and doctrines were clearly delineated, his crucifixion and resurrection foretold in the prophecies; whether it was a misinterpretation of these sacred writers, to expect on their authority a temporal Messiah :-These questions, and a variety of others such as these, must immediately present themselves on the first appeal to the argument from prophecy, and to decide them in favour of Christianity, required a patient attention, and a sobriety of mind, which were utterly repugnant to the very nature of enthusiasm. Suitably to these principles, we find in the history of the first progress of the gospel, that those, and those only, who would listen to reasoning, who impartially and carefully examined the Scriptures, were influenced by the apostles' appeal to them. When at Antioch,* in Pisidia, Paul in the synagogue, after the *Acts xiii. 14. * reading the law and the prophets, stood up to explain what had been read; his discourse exhibits a view of the entire Jewish history, and critical explanations of some passages of Scripture, as remote from the wildness of enthusiasm, as can be conceived. The Jews on that day listened with attention, and many of them, as well as of the religious proselytes, followed the apostles who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. But when the Gentiles wished to hear the same arguments, and when on the next Sabbath-day almost the whole city assembled together to hear the word of the preachers, the bigotry of the Jews would no longer bear the eagerness of their intrusion; † "seeing the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming," and by their opposition raised such persecution against the apostles, as compelled them to save their lives by flight. Nor was this fury appeased even by their flight, for they pursued the apostle to Iconium and Lystra, till they had, as they hoped, inflicted that vengeance which their enraged bigotry required; for at Lystra, they "persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.”‡ The characters of enthusiasm are precipitation and violence. These uniformly contributed not to forward, but to oppose the success of the first preachers of Christianity. If the Jews at Berea § were influenced by the reasoning of the apostles, "so that many of them believed, also of honourable women that were Greeks, and of men not a few," it was because they not only "received the word with all readiness of mind," but searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. In truth it seems difficult in the extreme, to peruse the epistles to the Hebrews, the Romans, and the Galatians, in all which this argument from the prophecies and from the general scope of the Jewish dispensation, is largely applied to confirm and illustrate the Gospel, without observing a clearness of thought, an extent of information and a sobriety of intellect, utterly repugnant to the character of enthusiasm. The ignorant Acts xiii. 43. + Acts xiii. 45. Acts xiv. 19. § Acts xvii. 10. E and superficial may deride, because they do not understand such reasoning; but the serious and sober inquirer will trace its coherence, and admire its strength. 66 Admitting the truth of these principles, we cannot wonder at the confidence with which St. Paul urged this topic of argument, before King Agrippa, whom he knew to be possessed of information which qualified him to judge of its force. think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee, especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions among the Jews; wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently." ** This is surely not the language of a deluded and wild visionary. No; such men appeal to the tribunal of ignorance alone, and rely for success on the folly and precipitance of their hearers. Not so the apostle, his was the cause of truth and soberness; he rejoiced to appeal to an enlightened and rational judge. "I continue," says he, "unto this day witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come; that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people and the Gentiles." When the ignorance of the Roman governor led him to exclaim, "Paul, too much learning hath made thee mad;" how calm and rational the reply, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and soberness; for the king knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely, for I am persuaded none of these things are hid from him, for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest." Does the king's reply disavow either the notoriety of the facts thus attested, or the validity of the argument from prophecy?" Almost," said Agrippa, "thou persuadest me to be a Christian." More he could not have admitted without becoming wholly a Christian. And this was morally impossible, that a proud and voluptuous Jewish monarch should, at the hazard of his crown, embrace the faith of an upstart, a despised and hated sect, the founder of which had been crucified, and the chief preacher of which appeared before him a prisoner, loaded with Acts xxvi. the whole chapter. chains and obloquy. This could not be without some supernatural change, violently and irresistibly overpowering every feeling of his soul, and subverting his whole moral character; and we never find miracles employed to work such a change as this. But would a wild enthusiast have been able to adduce evidence strong enough to extort such an admission from such an opponent ? Would a senseless fanatic have been able to use this admission with such consummate address, united with such manly firmness and unaffected dignity, as the apostle displayed in his reply? For Paul said, "I would to God that not only thou, but all who hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." No; to attribute such reasoning and such conduct to the wild ravings of enthusiasm, is to outrage every feeling of nature, and every principle of truth. Thus it has, I trust, been shown, that the main argument from prophecy was as remote in its origin from enthusiastic delusion, and as incapable of combining with, or deriving strength and success from fanaticism in its progress, as the proof which miracles supplied. In truth, these two modes of proof were inseparably connected together. *" There could have been no possible pretence for supposing, that Jesus of Nazareth, an obscure peasant, who had no one of these external characters the Jews notoriously expected in their Messiah, and all evidence about whom was closed by his death; there could, I say, have been no pretence for asserting such a character was the promise Redeemer, of whom such opposite and such magnificent expectations had been conceived, except his extraordinary works had marked him out as an extraordinary personage." The argument from prophecy, therefore, could not for a moment have been listened to, except attention had been excited to it by the notoriety of the miracles; but when attended to, it supplied a new source of proof, which calm reason alone could advance or comprehend. Hence it is we find the first preachers of the Gospel perpetually uniting these two arguments, to convince their Jewish converts. But it is extremely important to remark, that they *Vide Paley's Evidence of Christianity, p. 87, Dublin edit., where this argument is most clearly enforced. urged these arguments on different descriptions of their hearers, exactly as they were capable of feeling their force. To the Jews it was that they most frequently and earnestly urged the argument from the prophetic writings, because they admitted their authority, were familiarized to their language, and therefore prepared to understand their true meaning. While to the heathens they generally argued, from the miracles they themselves beheld, or might be assured of by evidence of most unquestionable certainty; and from the truths of natural religion, which were congenial to the reason and the feelings of every human mind, contrasted with the absurd and pernicious nature of their idolatry.' Now, let me ask, does not this mode of conducting their cause, prove not only that it was founded on reason, but that it was supported with sobriety of mind? The precipitate and blind zeal of enthusiasm would not attend to such a distinction as this. Artifice and imposture would not thus submit to every hearer principally those arguments, which each would be most easily able to examine, and therefore, if they were fallacious, most likely to refute. Assuredly then the apostles spoke the words of truth and soberness. SECTION IV. The Prophecies delivered by our Saviour, and such Predictions of the Apostles as are connected with them, are not imputable to Enthusiasm. On this subject of the argument of prophecy, as applied by its first preachers, to spread or to establish the belief of the Gospel, it is necessary to observe further, that not only the appeal to the Jewish Scriptures, on which the argument principally depended, could not derive its origin or success from enthusiasm; but that the predictions which are ascribed to our Lord, by the evangelists, as well as some instances of prophecies * Vide St. Paul's addresses to the Heathens, at Lystra, Acts, xiv., and to the Court of Areopagus, at Athens, Acts, xvii. |